"Seems you -- and far too many others -- are more concerned about sparing people's "feelings" than in defending scientific, epistemological, and logical principles ...."
"Seems you -- and far too many others -- are more concerned about sparing people's "feelings" than in defending scientific, epistemological, and logical principles ...."
Your promoted definition of male and female is yours alone, it is not shared by any of the biologists you keep naming along with their credentials. I've read those links, they do not say that any definition of biological sex is tied to current fertility.
The "trans" promote articles of absurd faith and repudiate science; you claim to represent science while promoting an absurdity.
That you keep insisting that your view, universally labeled "absurd" by all who bother to comment on it, is "accepted biological fact" suggests, and not subtly, that there is something wrong with your mind.
Sex is defined from fertilization to death.
I don't care if you bark and clap. You probably need a psychiatrist. Bring your toothbrush.
> it is not shared by any of the biologists you keep naming along with their credentials ... they do not say that any definition of biological sex is tied to current fertility.
As I've pointed out several times -- which you're too thick or intellectually dishonest to address -- it's not necessary to say those definitions are "tied to current fertility". It's implicit in the definitions and in the concept of intensional definitions which specify "necessary and sufficient conditions" for sex category membership. That is, those conditions are "produces gametes" -- present tense indefinite. No gametes, no sex. Q.E.D.
As it's not necessary to say that those who are 20 and older are no longer teenagers.
> universally labeled "absurd" by all who bother to comment on it ...
And their credentials are what? ЁЯЩД
But you might try getting your head out of your arse long enough to note that when you press "Reply" there are two comment dialogue boxes that are visible, a top level one, and one pertaining to the comment that you're referring to ...
No, it is not "immplicit in the definnitions," that is your personal embellishment, and nobody in the field shares it. You have an astonishingly long list of highly credentialed people whom you dismiss as stupid, and it is suppportive of my diagnosis of you that this is not registering with you.
Their credentials are far higher than yours. Many of them have graduate degrees in the biological sciences, while you have an AA in an unrelated field.
And nobody, but nobody, believes in your redefinition.
And, no, that does not mean that you're smarter than all of them.
In your entirely unevidenced OPINION. Which ain't worth diddly-squat.
And which I'm no longer willing to let you peddle here. Take some time out, consider that you might have some "unevidenced assumptions", that you have your head up your arse -- or those of too many so-called experts ...
"Seems you -- and far too many others -- are more concerned about sparing people's "feelings" than in defending scientific, epistemological, and logical principles ...."
You are a very, very, very sick man
Your promoted definition of male and female is yours alone, it is not shared by any of the biologists you keep naming along with their credentials. I've read those links, they do not say that any definition of biological sex is tied to current fertility.
The "trans" promote articles of absurd faith and repudiate science; you claim to represent science while promoting an absurdity.
That you keep insisting that your view, universally labeled "absurd" by all who bother to comment on it, is "accepted biological fact" suggests, and not subtly, that there is something wrong with your mind.
Sex is defined from fertilization to death.
I don't care if you bark and clap. You probably need a psychiatrist. Bring your toothbrush.
> it is not shared by any of the biologists you keep naming along with their credentials ... they do not say that any definition of biological sex is tied to current fertility.
As I've pointed out several times -- which you're too thick or intellectually dishonest to address -- it's not necessary to say those definitions are "tied to current fertility". It's implicit in the definitions and in the concept of intensional definitions which specify "necessary and sufficient conditions" for sex category membership. That is, those conditions are "produces gametes" -- present tense indefinite. No gametes, no sex. Q.E.D.
As it's not necessary to say that those who are 20 and older are no longer teenagers.
> universally labeled "absurd" by all who bother to comment on it ...
And their credentials are what? ЁЯЩД
But you might try getting your head out of your arse long enough to note that when you press "Reply" there are two comment dialogue boxes that are visible, a top level one, and one pertaining to the comment that you're referring to ...
No, it is not "immplicit in the definnitions," that is your personal embellishment, and nobody in the field shares it. You have an astonishingly long list of highly credentialed people whom you dismiss as stupid, and it is suppportive of my diagnosis of you that this is not registering with you.
Their credentials are far higher than yours. Many of them have graduate degrees in the biological sciences, while you have an AA in an unrelated field.
And nobody, but nobody, believes in your redefinition.
And, no, that does not mean that you're smarter than all of them.
In your entirely unevidenced OPINION. Which ain't worth diddly-squat.
And which I'm no longer willing to let you peddle here. Take some time out, consider that you might have some "unevidenced assumptions", that you have your head up your arse -- or those of too many so-called experts ...
ЁЯЩД Butthurt that I won't bark and clap like a trained seal when you peddle untenable definitions? Rather like the TRAs with their TWAW mantra? ЁЯЩВ